3 ms·
Some of the conclusions are weird, e.g. negative impact on new constructions: > This could involve the construction of public housing or financial support for
by tonfa 2y ago
Some of the conclusions are weird, e.g. negative impact on new constructions:
> This could involve the construction of public housing or financial support for private investors engaged in social housing development. Consequently, the total number of completed dwellings can remain steady or even rise, potentially leading to a misinterpretation of rent control's impact as beneficial.
I'm not quite sure why this wouldn't count as beneficial. The place I live even has such a goal (30% non-profit landlords, renters usually become member of the non-profit when they rent).
- jmalicki 2y agoThey're not saying that "construction of public housing or financial support for private investors engaged in social housing development" is not beneficial. They're saying that the "null hypothesis" of "mainstream chicago-school economics" would be: 1. The above laws would be beneficial to construction of low-income housing 2. rent control would be detrimental to construction of low-income housing When some of the laws did both at once, it is hard to disentangle the effects, and the study is calling out that the confounding variable of the aforecited amendments to rent control laws is not well controlled for, calling into question the overall conclusions.